If you don't want one, don't buy one. It's a lot less offensive than some of the bumper stickers out there. Why the extreme reaction for things that don't matter much and completely ignoring a lot of things that are critical? I suppose a Global Warming plate goes too far too.

Screw the NRA. They are a private, Washington lobby of phonies and have no business getting free advertising with taxpayers money. What a joke politician this guy is.

You don't know what you're talking about.just like all liberals.

Typical liberal anti gun, anti American answer "tactical45". If you don't like something or someone, "screw them". Of course your opinion is the only important one.

A NRA symbol on the license plate would be the least of my concerns in looking at all the stuff out right now. It's just the regular jerks again that are against anything and everything. Don't listen.

I'm a liberal. I don't believe we should be handing out welfare to corporations or letting corporations buy our government and use it to aid in looting our country. I don't think the government or the corporations that own it should tell use who we can marry, what we can smoke, or what god we should pray to. That being said, I'm also a member of the NRA and an NRA licensed handgun and firearms safety instructor. Don't lump all liberals in with the anti-gun crowd. Liberal- comes from the same root word as the word liberty-as in freedom from oppression from either government or corporations.

Yeah. I agree with you 100%. I just finished reading a story about a soldier who shot his roommate in the head. You would think they would be trained that you treat every weapon as it is loaded or not point a weapon at something you don't intend to kill. A couple of things you learn from this sort of weapon training proposed.

Don't worry about a thing. Obama will take care of everything. He promises change. A change in Presidents in 2012. I promise.

I don't care much for the NRA, but I do see a good point about the plate. If it's for hunters' safety, why not?

Hunter safety is a good idea, but misuse of firearms is much more of a problem in non-hunting situations. The NRA through its legalized bribery of legislators through lobbying activities and campaign contributions, as well as its incessant message of fear has caused too many guns in the hands of people who should not have guns.

Without the NRA we would have a much safer society.

Really!? "If it's for hunters' safety, why not?" Really!? Is really just that easy?

In my opinion if they want to go out there try and be a "hunter" then let them pay for the training themselves. Just like they paid for the weapon themselves, just like they paid for their hunter licence themselves. If you're part of the NRA that's fine and your right but taking proceeds from the plates for some supposed safety training sounds a bit faulty. Simply sounds more like a chance for the already substantial lobbying NRA to generate more lobbying revenue. Just my opinion. Think about it would you be against a Goldman Sachs or B of A Licence plate where the proceeds would go to Economic Safety Training?

I think Dick Cheney should have to pay double!

Well despite having grown up with guns and being an avid shooter I'm not the biggest fan of the NRA. Still they put so many different things on license plates these days I dont really see what the big fuss is about. If people can have a "Save the whales" plate then why can't they have an NRA Plate. Personally I wouldn't be caught dead with either one on my car though.

I really could give a flying fazoo about the lisense plate thing, and I'm also a liberal. I can only speak for myself, but it isn't really the guns I have the issue with, it's the false arguments and fear mongering. If you wanna own a gun, own a gun, but please don't spout off about self defense, crime prevention, or ensuring our freedom. Those arguments don't hold water.

Crime prevention needs to be looked at through the lens of a hybrid social science that includes criminology, victimology, sociology, and psychology. You can't simply say, "Guns make criminals think twice." No, they don't. Crime is motivated by all sorts of different social and cultural factors, by all sorts of different individuals, and each crime comitted by each criminal is different. Guns would only make them think twice if each criminal and each crime was rational.

Self defense also needs to be taken a case at a time. There are only a few instances, under an alignment of a perfect set of circumstances where a gun would work. Think about it... Timing, location,the circumstances of the crime, the mental capacity of the victim, the lifestyle of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator... I could go on and on. An example, drive by shootings, a completely innocent person caught in one, is dead, long before they could pull a gun. Rape? Most rape is acquaintance rape, where victims tend to freeze or not even realize what's happening until it's too late.

And the government, really? First, who are these people, that we voted into office I might add, that want to usurp our liberty? Why would they want to destroy the very system that gives them their power? Why wouldn't checks and balances stop them? How would they go about doing this? Would they get our military to join them? If so, why would our military? If not, why wouldn't we use our military to stop them? Think about it. The 2nd Amendment was written when a red coat or "injun" could literally show up at your door, with zero notice, and kill you, while help was days, if not weeks, away. Now we have radar, cell phones, police, national guards, and we're all pretty much crammed into cities or suburbs.

I own a dozen or more guns and pistols, and I used to be a member of the NRA, but now, I guess, I'm just A self-gratifying liberal. I gave up on the NRA and it's whackos when they came out against banning assault weapons and teflon-coated bullets. If any of them could explain to me how that isn't just plain dumb, I'll gladly re-join the NRA. In the meantime, I'm going to my room to fondle my handguns while drooling at the centerfold in my latest Gun Digest.

I gave up on the NRA and it's whackos when they came out against banning assault weapons and teflon-coated bullets. If any of them could explain to me how that isn't just plain dumb, I'll gladly re-join the NRA. In the meantime, I'm going to my room to fondle my handguns while drooling at the centerfold in my latest Gun Digest.

Your time would be better spent educating yourself on the canards that you gave as reasons for dropping out of the NRA.

Sarah, you make some very valid points and strong arguments. You're correct, it is silly to simply state guns can control crime or are always necessary for self defense. I don't think that is what most people believe. The problem is that pesky little document called the Constitution. You're right, the authors of the Constitution wanted to make sure that there would be a system of checks and balances against tyranny. One of these checks is the 2nd Amendment. Whether you believe that it is possible for an eventual government or leader to usurp the Constitution and our system of government in this day and age is not relevant. The fact remains that is why the 2nd Amendment existed than and the reason it exists, today. The only way to change that is to remove the amendment. Of course, this would be an impossible task in our current political climate and belief system.

TheFrog, while I don't support the NRA, I do see an argument in their line of thinking. Why should there be a ban on assault weapons? Do officers of the government (police, military, etc) have access to these weapons? If the answer is yes, then why shouldn't the citizens have access, as well? It would defeat the purpose of the 2nd Amendment if they did not.

John,

I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment, but I do believe that, similar to other areas of the Constitution, it should be interpreted to fit today's climate. I believe it was either Franklin or Jefferson who wanted the Constitution to be updated every 10 years, because they knew how fast things changed.

There's a lot of ways we interpret the Constitution that has nothing to do with it's original writting, like the Air Force for example, or applying the 4th amendment to wire taps...

Bearing arms was a feasible protection against tyranny in 1789, however, I don't believe that it would work any longer. I also hate when people try to make the argument that what's happening in Afganistan proves that hand gun owners protect us from tyranny. If someone was on, OUR land, threatening OUR establishment, I gaurentee you, it wouldn't be your hand gun owners dealing with them. We have soldiers that can kill you with a paper clip and missles that could stop them before they even got across the ocean. I highly doubt it would come down to Joe Shcmoe with his handgun that he's never shot anywhere expect the range, or at anything other than a paper cut out.

Excellent point Sarah, but you would have to "interpret" all of the ammendments to todays standards. Take the 14th ammendment, for example. The purpose of the 14th Ammendment was to provide citizenship for the freed slaves. Since there are no longer any freed slaves alive in this country since they would have to be over 150 years old, we can now safely repeal the 14th Ammendment since it no longer applies to todays standards. Or do you only want to "interpret" the ammendments that deal with things you don't like? Yes things are much different today then they were in 1787, ie the likelyhood of troops being garrisoned in private homes is pretty low, but if the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect modern issues, then it needs to be done through the proper channels; the ammendment process.

Matt,

The purpose of the 14th Amendment is to provide equal protection under the law and apply the Bill of Rights to the States. The purpose of the 13th Amendment was the abolition of slavery, and the outlawing of it.

Ergo, I wouldn't suggest amending either of those. It's still relevant that we don't want slaves, and that we DO want equal protection.

I only want to reinterpret the ones, that need to be applied with modern technology in mind, as well as the current size of our economy and capabilities of our country.

Sarah,

At the very least we need to put to bed the concept that the 2nd Amendment is intended to protect us from the government. If I might paraphrase John Adams, the idea that we can use our guns to oppose any government actions we (as individuals) don't approve of is just a license for political assassination. We have another mechanism for opposing those actions, it's called the vote and it has worked well for hundreds of years.

Thank you Cal, thank you! I mean, really, some of these arguments are fear mongering of the worst kind. The greatest gun control available, is to just be logical about this whole issue.

Now we have radar, cell phones, police, national guards, and we're all pretty much crammed into cities or suburbs.

None of that was of any use to the 18 year old widow that had to defend herself and her baby. And as far as your point about technology goes the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is intended to put a fence around what government and people in power can do. Technological advances aren't relevant to that.

Bassai,

See my thoughts on self defense and crime prevention...

Crime prevention needs to be looked at through the lens of a hybrid social science that includes criminology, victimology, sociology, and psychology. You can't simply say, "Guns make criminals think twice." No, they don't. Crime is motivated by all sorts of different social and cultural factors, by all sorts of different individuals, and each crime comitted by each criminal is different. Guns would only make them think twice if each criminal and each crime was rational.

Self defense also needs to be taken a case at a time. There are only a few instances, under an alignment of a perfect set of circumstances where a gun would work. Think about it... Timing, location,the circumstances of the crime, the mental capacity of the victim, the lifestyle of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator... I could go on and on. An example, drive by shootings, a completely innocent person caught in one, is dead, long before they could pull a gun. Rape? Most rape is acquaintance rape, where victims tend to freeze or not even realize what's happening until it's too late.

See my examples of how we do have to apply the Constitution to current technology...

There's a lot of ways we interpret the Constitution that has nothing to do with it's original writting, like the Air Force for example, or applying the 4th amendment to wire taps...

If you want to own a gun, that's perfectly fine, as I also said above, but please also own the real reasons behind owning it, and cease to make illogical, overly simplistic, arguments, in an attempt to scare me into supporting gun ownership. I already do, I just don't support the ridiculous fear mongering perpetrated by the NRA and gun nuts.

Sara, I am not a "gun nut" nor a fearmonger. I don't believe many 2nd Amendment advocates are. I believe in the Constitution and the need to uphold the ideals that it was written to protect. I agree that there needs to be some room for interpretation that reflect changes in modern society. But, I think we should never lose sight of what the intention was behind the freedoms we were granted, this includes the right to bear arms.

I also believe in our system of government, the abiility to make great changes through peaceful means, so I accept that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a need for ordinary citizens to take up arms against the government. This does not change the fact and the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, which was not added so people could hunt. The concept of the 2nd Amendment was, indeed, to prevent another tyrannical government, I don't think that it needs to be "put to bed" as the poster above says. I am not sure which Adams that was parahprased from (I would be interested to read it), but, it is, quite frankly, a license for rebellion. Read the Declaration of Independence. We believed we did everything we could to prevent armed rebelllion against England until we had no choice. The founders knew that it would have been impossible to wage this civil war without an armed populace.

John,

By no means did I think that you were. You actually sound very reasonable, and I totally get your position on the Constitution. I do think, however, that you're jumping to the conclusion that anyone who has issues with the 2nd Amendment doesn't understand the Constitution, or wants it erased.

Is it important to remember the original writer's meanings... Yes, but I believe only for historical reference, not to base arguments dealing with 20th Century social science and economics on.

I didn't mean to imply that you wanted it erased. And, I am not against all gun control by any stretch of the imagination. I am in favor of regulation of the 2nd Amendment the same way the 1st, and any other Constitutional right, is regulated. So, when I said the amendment would need to be amended or abolished, that would be the only way for gun opponents to remove that right.

While we probably agree more than disagree, there is a point that I think we are in very different agreement on. I don't think that original intent is an idea that should only serve as historical reference. I am only referring to Constitutional interpretation, here, not criminology or economics. But, the fact is, when determining Constitutional law, the original intent of the framers plays a critical role in determining what is and isn't constitutional. This was the case in the recent Supreme Court decision involving the handgun ban in Washington DC.

Maybe this NRA license plate would be a good idea.

Then we could more easily identify the gun nuts.

kaybeetoys= Why do you want to indentify so called "gun nuts". I guess anyone who has a gun is dangerous to you? And when they are "identified" what do you propose to do?

Very good answer!

Then dont get one xdm9mm

If someone wants to have a license plate that reflects their hobby, why not?

Or is it that our liberal brethren are only into endorsing the things they think should be permissible.

I mean I'm not against them buying a "Wise Obama" license - even if, in my opinion, it is an utter contradiction in terms.

To XDm9mm: My first thought was ugh, I hate it, but if we can have anti-choice plates, I guess we couldn't say no to these.

But your point is a very good one. These plates could open up a world of hurt if some lowlife were looking for someone's guns to steal. If someone is dumb enough to advertise there are guns at their house, any creep could start a tragedy by trying to get his hands on them. Thanks for bringing up a good point.

Lynn... Glad I could assist. ALWAYS think security and safety, especially when dealing with firearms.

I COULD advertise mine, but then I'd need the bars and stuff that the gun shops have.

Remember one thing. It's often easier to hide something right out in the open than to hide it. It attracts less attention and questions. If people see it they usually disregard it.

What a wise post. (A relative rarity on Newsvine).

XD, I remember a news story where a motorist became angry at another driver with an NRA sticker and reported to the police the NRA driver pointed a handgun at him. The guy later admitted he made the entire story up, after the guy with the sticker endured the stress of possible criminal charges.

I agree. I don't wear firearms t-shirts or hats for the same reason.

again its a matter of choice. If you dont want one dont buy one but how dare you infringe on the rights of anyone who wants too. i personally dont want one but more power to those that do. I am sick and tired of people crying about what everyone does to offend them. Get over yourself and let people alone to do what they want. if you want to get on a" ban" wagon take a good look at our government. they are stripping your rights away one by one and you whiners will be the first to be shocked when they come for you.

I commend your ownership of your SpringfieldArmory XD-M high capacity 9mm semi-auto pistol Sir. Another "round" of applause ! No "standing" ovation for the criminal on your watch.

XD, you can put up a yard sign that says your neighbor is a gun-hater and his house is a gun free zone. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, the burglars will go there first.

glenbo... I could, but the bad guy would be even more surprised. He's a supervisor with DEA and she's a US Marshall. Oh, and if they're not home, the dogs will definitely let him/her know that picking that particular house was a VERY bad idea!!

Vincent.... thanks. I like it better than my Glock to be honest.

pauliegirl... not exactly sure who you're responding to, but your views are very true. People don't believe rights are disappearing but that's because they're coming through as various "regulations" from different agencies and not as actual "laws" being enacted by Congress.

I think its a great idea. Anyone for target practice?

I'm an NRA Benefactor life member and I don't advertise that I carry a .45 everywhere it's legal to do so. I certainly don't want to have labels all over my vehicles that there might be a gun inside. Although I vewry seldom leave it in the car, it's on me on in the safe I have in the car if I have to go to a school.

Hmmm ... maybe we didn't read the same article. I saw the sentence you extracted, but I also saw a sentence that reads ...

The special plates would raise more money for hunter education and firearm safety programs run by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Not one dollar would go to the National rifle Association.

maybe we didn't read the same article. I saw the sentence you extracted, but I also saw a sentence that reads ...

Yeah! We read the same article, but you believe everything they said...I don't.

So, you DO believe the things you "read into" an article that werent there?

Delusional.

Yoshi

So, iRespond, you only believe the portions of this article that promote your pesonal agenda, all other facts aside? Have you actually read the legislation? I know of no state that allows the commercial sale of license plates for the benefit of a non-government entity. The fees associated with a specific plate are ear-marked for a corresponding government program.

If you can prove (and I really do mean prove, not just pass on something you heard) otherwise, please post it on this thread.

I certainly hope it does help fund the NRA. They are the best organization out there!! GO NRA!! Lock and load!

Irespond, the state collects the money. As a state agency it's very easy to find out where ever penny goes.

In other words...your an idiot.

Someone could present you with a car and you would think it was a bomb because you dont believe everything.

You believe what you want when you want. Simple, your arrogant and stupid.

You are incorrect IRESPOND. The NRA Lobby's on behalf of ALL American's 2nd Amendment Rights from membership fees only. Please research BEFORE you post.

More money for the Murder Lobby, it seems.

So then "Choose Life" plates are more money for the religious lobby, it seems.

Toasty McGrath believes anyone who wants to defend his/her family is a criminal who should be in prison for 25 to life so his opinion is of no value whatsoever.

I agree, AFS. Neither should be state-sponsored. That's a very dangerous path to start down on.

Nope, you obviously don't understand how the State of WA licenses work.

Come on people, the Democrats are not after your guns, and never have made it an issue, but for 50 years now, the NRA has been saying this on every election. The NRA is a paid political broadcast. Fifty years of the same thing and I'll tell you why it will never happen, and it's simple numbers, more than half of the democrats are gun owners too and feel just as strongly about giving up our guns as you republicans do. God forbid, but me and millions of other democrats would become republicans if they ever did make gun control an issue. The license plates, I could care less if your license plate has NRA on it, yall already have bumper stickers and anti Obama stickers, it's your car, put what you want on it.

DeFishmon....

I have the jackets and hats, and carry a supply of applications with me.

Unfortunately, I'm not always around to "protect" my vehicle when doing things like shopping. Personally, I'd hate to come back and find some anti-gunner had a game of tic-tac-toe on the door!!

And like you, all a "wanter" would get is tired trying to get into the house and safe to get to the firearms.

Plus if I happened to be there, they would get a very interesting surprise. OK.. maybe not interesting, but you get the idea.

As a proud NRA LIFE MEMBER I display a NRA decal on the back window of my pickup as well as on my wife's SUV. I also believe in security but I don't think a license plate would really draw any more attention than my decal. Also, if any "wanters" might try stealing my guns I will happily introduce them to the 2d Amendment.

Not allowing NRA license plates is just about libaterd control.

Oh Go Ahead! Get one for your truck!

You can also add a bumper sticker that would read:

"If you lived in your car, you would be home now"

That is also a good one.

How true. Hope you notice that those complaining the loudest are from the Pudgent Sound area. Being a Democrat, I even get tired of our ultra-liberal Pudgent Sound area (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsasp counties).

IRESPOND.... I guess you're jealous he has a car to live in.

Well said!

Yeah Bunny watch'em Hug those ugly ol tools of death when some freak comes for their Toys.. lol hypocrites !!

Theo lad I could not help saying how much I would rather be sliced up from a razor or butcher knife than die from a single clean thru and thru bullet. I agree Death is too important to not drag it out as long as you can painfully and messy. After all getting to finally see your internal organs you've been carrying around for so long is educational.

Gun deaths are a sign of our immoral society.

Theo... define "assault rifle" please.

unknown1 - Who would you rather face at 50ft or at 10ft for that matter, a guy with a gun or a guy with a knife? And how many people perpetrating crimes of passion would have been able to go through with it if they had to do their killing by hand instead of with the impersonal ease of a gun?

9mm - I suspect I don't have to define this for you but I mean that class of small bore, large clip similar to AK47 type of semi auto or readily converted to full auto military weapons - you know, the ones that won't be used in a NRA hunter ed class.

Theo

Did you know that a Bolt Action rifle can be converted to a semi auto rifle? Not sure but you maybe able to modify the Pedersen Device to go full auto. Now do you want to ban Bolt action rifles?? They just might be able to be modified to fire Full Auto.

Here is a list of BANNED Handguns in California.

http://content.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/California-removed-guns.pdf

Notice that there are revolvers and .22's on the list.

Theo, no disrespect, but yes, I would like a PRECISE definition of an "assault rifle".

To be honest, your definition is uselessly broad and boarders on absurd. By your definition, the Ruger 10/22 that my wife uses is an assault rifle. And would your definition extend to the M-14 that I use, or how about the Mini-14 I own. Would you classify the Garand in 30-06 caliber in your definition?

And many people are starting to carry assault "looking" rifles afield for hunting. You might carry a Winchester lever action, or a nice Model 70 bolt action, but not everyone does.

So yes, please provide a "precise" definition of an "Assault Rifle".

Just a bit of afterthought. In the history of the United States, there has never been a crime committed with a LEGALLY owned assult rifle ( as per FBI and ATF records). For $500.00 ( cost of the ATF permit and background check) and the price of the weapon, you can own one too. For hunting? Naaa - too hard to be accurate on full auto. Personally, I would rather have a Barrett m107 to play with. Oh, I do!

We don't need those to hunt deer.

The Second Amendment isn't about being able to shoot a freaking deer.

Guess you missed MSNBC's article yesterday about the continuing decline in the homicide rate or recent articles about continuing increase in legal firearms purchases by citizens exercising their rights.

Theo,

You do realize that full automatic weapons are very rarely used in crimes, dont you? Do you even know the process required to get one? You have to buy the gun, pay the BATF $200, wait god knows how long (sometimes 8 months!) for them to send you a stamp back. Then, only YOU can have the gun. No one else can have access to it when you arent around. Oh, and to top it off, you cant buy a full auto that was made in the last 25 years, therefore there is a limited supply making them extremely expensive. The NRA rarely even brings full autos up.

As for your assault rifle comment, by definition an assault rifle is full auto. Now I realize you are referring to the "cosmetic" elements that people classify an assault rifle. Why does that matter? Someone can easily reload, why does magazine size matter?

As I suspected, you really dont know what you are talking about. The 2A is NOT about hunting. It is about being able to defend yourself, your family, and in the most dire situation, your country.

Excellent idea! Then the bad guys know you're a "safe" target!

Vinegaroon, don't be ridiculous. Of course I only use hollow-point ammo for home defense. It fragments inside the target and prevents through-and-through shots that might penetrate walls.

There, feel better?

vinegaroon...

first, criminals are that because they... DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

M-60's, AK-47's and such can be had, but it is a very expensive FEDERAL License that's required to get one. Oh and a VERY extensive background investigation. Don't hold your breath while waiting for it to process.

Personally - I prefer a 12ga pump with #4 shot in close quarters. It may not kill an intruder but they damn sure are going to stop moving and it does not go anywhere else. Granny Clampet used rock salt and baccon rind.

Gas Doesn't Kill People; Drunk BBQers do!

Do you really want your neighbor to own gasoline or a propane grill that can burn through your walls. They might get drunk and start a fire, maybe they aren't wound too tight to begin with, or they may be cooking hotdog, but your house is next door and there might be sparks. Think about what it would be like for all that fire burning down your house. I am against gas control but agree with the ban on privately owned gasses.

M-60's, AK-47's and such can be had, but it is a very expensive FEDERAL License that's required to get one.

And if they were made before May or June of 1986. Don't recall the exact date.

Bassai

That is for SEMI AUTO rifles. MACHINE GUNS AKA ASSAULT RIFLES have been illegal since the early 30's. FOOL.

Short answer for you courtesy of Hanson Rod & Gun Club:

The ownership of machineguns was first regulated at the federal level by the National Firearms Act of 1934. This act establishes the need for the approval of the Treasury to transfer or own a machine gun along with the payment of a $200.00 tax each time a weapon is transferred to or among individual collectors. In addition the weapons are registered in a federal database. These procedures remain in effect today as part of the federal tax code though they are administered by the Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

A second federal statute, The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, created two broad classes of automatic weapons. Guns manufactured and registered prior to the acts date which can be owned by civilians. These are called "transferable guns". Those manufactured on or following the acts date are restricted to manufacturers, dealers and government entities. There are additional restrictions on dealers and manufactures which are not detailed here.

Longer answer is avaible in the ATF's National Firearms Act Handbook.

Apology accepted.

Well it is kind of interesting how skewed the conversation gets.

“All the special design plates have to do with memorializing certain professions, are related to peaceful activities, or related to protecting the environment...,”

Ummm, how about license plates of military veterans and those with Purple Hearts or those that display a branch of military service. If you consider those 'professions, peaceful activities, and protecting the environment', one could make a pretty good case that NRA members also engage in such activities.

Hunting helps protect the environment, especially in the culling of feral hogs that can quickly unbalance an environment. Hunting is also quite a bit more 'peaceful' than being deployed in a hostile military zone.

And while being an NRA member is not a profession, there are many professionals who are required to carry firearms. Should we exclude them from proudly displaying plates for their 'violent' professions?

In other words, opponents for the most part are just NRA opponents and really don't give a flip about the established precidents.

Btw: Liberal, for the most part with a CC license as well as firearms. If some crazed conservative starts shooting my fellow liberals, I want no shortage of liberal firepower in coming to their defense.

So don't confuse "liberal" with unprotected or whimpy or a "space cadet". It was liberals, not conservatives, that fought against England for independence. And it was the conservtive Southern States that supported staying with England.

SprDg. Excellent response! The only problem, you are confusing the issue with fact and logic

With a picture like that, you need more than a plate of ANY kind.

Sorry, just couldn't resist!!

I want a ACLU plate. No! just kidding as I have a Amateur radio license plate with my call sign on it. I am a life time member of the NRA and I am a member of the ACLU. So there. Mississippi has a license plate that says "Choose Life". MS has lots of so-called Vanity Plates. If you don't like it, just don't spend the extra $30 or thereabouts.

Sometimes, people should suffer the consequences of their own big mouths - especially those, who like the rest of us, who have been forewarned to "prepare" for emergencies, et al, and have not done so.

I seriously doubt, when the time comes, if I would put my family, friends, or colleagues at risk because some dumb a*s failed to prepare or take self-responsibility. Under those circumstances, they're on their own. Besides, it's natures way of culling the sick and stupid, and you cannot fix stupid. Surviving and ensuring you prepare is everyone's responsibility - if it sounds harsh, tough, because I, like many of you, took the time, labor, and expense to prepare. The last thing this society needs in more dead weight and some jackwagon who feeds off the rest of us. Screw that.

Agreed Doc, BTW I don't own a gun of any kind. Thanks to the right to bear arms I don't have to...

That's ok UNKNOWN1 - I know many folks who don't own guns, for whatever reason, but still prepare in other areas. As long as someone has a skill or something to "bring to the table", they would always be welcome. Besides, I am sure there would be enough guns to go around for these folks who don't own one, just in case extra backup was needed ! :>) Be well

the NRA is a polarizing entity so why the need to have license plates?

"Choose Life" isn't a polarizing topic? Why the need to have those plates?